Dear Reader, The wearing of a face mask to protect against a respiratory virus is an act of grand deceit. It is a behavior that defies research on the topic. Wearing a face mask, as this article (one of many) points to — is unsafe to do and is ineffective.
Been there right with you (and recently purchased your book) since the day they began calling for mandatory masking here in Montreal. I was appalled and began immediately diving into the literature stretching back to 1920-21. I did not come across a single high-quality RCT study that concluded masks were effective. I read hundreds of studies and essays - probably more since 2020.
But notice how they've changed the rules of engagement. The vast majority of studies to 2020, as you know, were conducted with surgical masks and for influenza.
They shifted to 'high quality proper fitting N-95' masking from 'wear anything' in their bid to promulgate a 'layered approach. when it became apparent RCT studies conducted were showing medical/surgical/cotton masks were useless.
They then promoted 'studies' that were advocacy posing as science most of which were lab-controlled and based on flawed mathematical models. And more troubling is some scientists (McIntyre) actually arguing that observational studies (long regarded as low quality) is suffice if not should replace RCTs. Mask wearing in community (and even hospital) settings isn't practical or successful for many reasons.
Absolutely unacceptable and annoying to shift standards like this on the fly. And I'm not even a scientist.
But this fight can no longer be won on the merits of evidence. Look at what they did to the Cochrane Review. Look at how the establishment con men ravaged it. This has become a full blown psychological - if not psychiatric - phenomenon now. Even political for some foolish enough to go that route.
When they rolled out mandatory masking in 2020, I told everyone around me this is not going to go well and was going to mess up people's psyche. I predicted they were going to mangle data to suit the narratives because it's easy to take the weakest of the NPIs and make it look like it 'worked' whether cases went up or down they can always claim it was either because not enough people wore them in the case if they went up and it was because everyone wore them (to save granny of course) when cases went down. Yet, evidence makes clear it had NO impact.
We have three major studies - Danmask, JHU and Cochrane now. Yet, either all wee ignored or misrepresented. But they sure are quick to showcase any study - however flawed - that seemingly confirms their narratives and bias.
They've inverted the Precautionary Principle. There's simply no empirical evidence justifying mandates. The best they can do is encourage people to wear them based on the evidence. Going beyond this is to violate the non-aggression principle and people's civil liberties.
I even set up my own website archiving select studies showing masks are superstition based on sound science. They're on par with amulets.
Been there right with you (and recently purchased your book) since the day they began calling for mandatory masking here in Montreal. I was appalled and began immediately diving into the literature stretching back to 1920-21. I did not come across a single high-quality RCT study that concluded masks were effective. I read hundreds of studies and essays - probably more since 2020.
But notice how they've changed the rules of engagement. The vast majority of studies to 2020, as you know, were conducted with surgical masks and for influenza.
They shifted to 'high quality proper fitting N-95' masking from 'wear anything' in their bid to promulgate a 'layered approach. when it became apparent RCT studies conducted were showing medical/surgical/cotton masks were useless.
They then promoted 'studies' that were advocacy posing as science most of which were lab-controlled and based on flawed mathematical models. And more troubling is some scientists (McIntyre) actually arguing that observational studies (long regarded as low quality) is suffice if not should replace RCTs. Mask wearing in community (and even hospital) settings isn't practical or successful for many reasons.
Absolutely unacceptable and annoying to shift standards like this on the fly. And I'm not even a scientist.
But this fight can no longer be won on the merits of evidence. Look at what they did to the Cochrane Review. Look at how the establishment con men ravaged it. This has become a full blown psychological - if not psychiatric - phenomenon now. Even political for some foolish enough to go that route.
When they rolled out mandatory masking in 2020, I told everyone around me this is not going to go well and was going to mess up people's psyche. I predicted they were going to mangle data to suit the narratives because it's easy to take the weakest of the NPIs and make it look like it 'worked' whether cases went up or down they can always claim it was either because not enough people wore them in the case if they went up and it was because everyone wore them (to save granny of course) when cases went down. Yet, evidence makes clear it had NO impact.
We have three major studies - Danmask, JHU and Cochrane now. Yet, either all wee ignored or misrepresented. But they sure are quick to showcase any study - however flawed - that seemingly confirms their narratives and bias.
They've inverted the Precautionary Principle. There's simply no empirical evidence justifying mandates. The best they can do is encourage people to wear them based on the evidence. Going beyond this is to violate the non-aggression principle and people's civil liberties.
I even set up my own website archiving select studies showing masks are superstition based on sound science. They're on par with amulets.
But the calls to bring them back never goes away.
Sorry for the length. Cheers.